[Goose]

As always a thought-provoking analysis. I agree with the vast majority of it. A few thoughts/questions below.

3. My hypothesis is Taylor knows we still suck and is shortening the game compared to what he normally tries to do on offense. We only had 66 plays yesterday and haven't had more than 73 in a game yet this season. Last season we averaged 69.83 plays per game and this year it is 68.4. As a reminder, those are both closer to Shaw's Stanford career median of 66 than to Taylor teams at Sacramento State, which averaged 73.9 plays per game and had a median of 76.5 (though clock rules play some role in this too). I think the bottom line is this is still not Taylor's offense. Hard to have Taylor's offense without a quarterback.

I had notice it too. Yesterday both teams were playing "slow", but TT seems perfectly fine with doing that this entire year. It is almost "Shaw like". I wonder if TT actually has a "preferred style of play", or in so far as he does he is professional enough and skilled enough to adapt his strategy and focus to the players he has? At Sac State it was one thing because he had the players to do that thing. At Stanford it has been of necessity another thing. I actually hope TT is fine being a "jack of all offenses" because IMO for the foreseeable future Stanford is gong to need "flexibility". We aren't going to be able to recruit/attract exactly the players we want. Adapting to get the best players possible and using them optimally even if they don't "fit the mold" is going to be a necessity. Thoughts?

4. I think we can tell ourselves the run game is making progress. Next week will be a test and the following week against SMU will probably make our run game look hapless, but on a super crappy offense the run game is the less crappy part.

Agree, especially the "less crappy" part. I am somewhat less sure how much we improved over last year, but at least this year we are actually running the ball as if we expect it to work. Last year we basically gave up on it. That in and of itself is "better". We will see what happens against a "good" run defense. We will know much more about how far we are away in the run game after a couple of weeks.

6.There is no reason supposedly smart, hard-working QBs with a year and a half of coaching by this staff and among the most returning production of any offense in the nation and facing a decent but not fearsome schedule should not be improving.

FWIW the same argument could be made about Jack West or Fred Buckley. IMO coaching of QBs is somewhat overrated. There are some things you can teach, but accuracy and decision making under pressure don't seem to be among them. Also, getting the most out of what you have may not be nearly enough if you don't have much. I can't blame TT for the lack of improvement. There are plenty of college QBs that spend their entire career attempting to learn field vision and never do. The "trick" is to find the recruits that have the essentials that can't be taught. Then coach them up on what can. Maybe Brown is is one of the guys that "has it". We all hope so.

[Goose]

As always a thought-provoking analysis. I agree with the vast majority of it. A few thoughts/questions below.

3. My hypothesis is Taylor knows we still suck and is shortening the game compared to what he normally tries to do on offense. We only had 66 plays yesterday and haven't had more than 73 in a game yet this season. Last season we averaged 69.83 plays per game and this year it is 68.4. As a reminder, those are both closer to Shaw's Stanford career median of 66 than to Taylor teams at Sacramento State, which averaged 73.9 plays per game and had a median of 76.5 (though clock rules play some role in this too). I think the bottom line is this is still not Taylor's offense. Hard to have Taylor's offense without a quarterback.

I had notice it too. Yesterday both teams were playing "slow", but TT seems perfectly fine with doing that this entire year. It is almost "Shaw like". I wonder if TT actually has a "preferred style of play", or in so far as he does he is professional enough and skilled enough to adapt his strategy and focus to the players he has? At Sac State it was one thing because he had the players to do that thing. At Stanford it has been of necessity another thing. I actually hope TT is fine being a "jack of all offenses" because IMO for the foreseeable future Stanford is gong to need "flexibility". We aren't going to be able to recruit/attract exactly the players we want. Adapting to get the best players possible and using them optimally even if they don't "fit the mold" is going to be a necessity. Thoughts?

4. I think we can tell ourselves the run game is making progress. Next week will be a test and the following week against SMU will probably make our run game look hapless, but on a super crappy offense the run game is the less crappy part.

Agree, especially the "less crappy" part. I am somewhat less sure how much we improved over last year, but at least this year we are actually running the ball as if we expect it to work. Last year we basically gave up on it. That in and of itself is "better". We will see what happens against a "good" run defense. We will know much more about how far we are away in the run game after a couple of weeks.

6.There is no reason supposedly smart, hard-working QBs with a year and a half of coaching by this staff and among the most returning production of any offense in the nation and facing a decent but not fearsome schedule should not be improving.

FWIW the same argument could be made about Jack West or Fred Buckley. IMO coaching of QBs is somewhat overrated. There are some things you can teach, but accuracy and decision making under pressure don't seem to be among them. Also, getting the most out of what you have may not be nearly enough if you don't have much. I can't blame TT for the lack of improvement. There are plenty of college QBs that spend their entire career attempting to learn field vision and never do. The "trick" is to find the recruits that have the essentials that can't be taught. Then coach them up on what can. Maybe Brown is is one of the guys that "has it". We all hope so.